So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
[Review & Outlook] AP
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
[
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?
Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
COMMENTARY
* $646,214 Per Government Job
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Here is what Rush means when he said he wants Obama to fail.
They're taking it out of context. I knew they would. But here's the thing. You see, ladies and gentlemen, I very seldom talk about my marketing strategy because my belief is: You execute it. You don't tell anybody about it. You don't prepare 'em for it. You just do it. You know, why tell people how you plan to separate them from their money, for example? You just do it. I'm talking about retail and public relations, marketing plans. Okay. Here's the circumstance. It's just a window into my fertile mind. Here we are. The new president is obviously running as fast as he can to the liberal left. I have known it since I first started studying him. I have known he's not a moderate. I have known he's not a centrist. I have known that he doesn't want to take anybody's ideas that are not his.
He'll say he does, but he is who he is. He's an extreme radical leftist who talks a conservative game to mask it. His demeanor belies the fact that he is who he is. From his demeanor, you'd never think this guy is a radical. You would never think he's an extremist unless you took seriously who his mentors are: Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, the whole list of these people that we weren't allowed to talk about during the campaigns. I mean, Obama's telling the Republicans not to listen to me, but it's okay for him to listen to Jeremiah Wright, for example. So in my mind, I know who he is and I know what he's going to do. I have no doubt, zero doubt about where Obama wants to take this country and why.
He wants to move it far left. He wants the government to be as large as it can. He wants power. He wants to punish success. He wants to try to make everybody as equal and the same as possible, 'cause that's "fair." There is nothing about him that has an adoration or respect for capitalism. Look at the stimulus bill and you can see. To me, anyway, there's no question about this. Now, when I gaze out across the country and I look at what is called the mass media, I see no person, entity, network -- I see no attitude, no similar attitude reflected. I see no skepticism. I see no curiosity. I see no informed knowledge. I see nothing but pure groupie idolatry, from a constitutionally charged business designed to be suspicious of people who want power and to vet them and to find out who they are.
So the mass media is selling a version of Obama that he wants sold. They are helping to advance it, to promote it, and promulgate it. Now, what am I to do? I love my country. I was born at one of the best times in world history to be born. We all were. Look at the opportunity that we have had because of the diligent, hard work, and sacrifices of our forbears. Look at the abundance into which we were born. Now, I don't have kids but I've got nieces and nephews, and I've got a lot of family that have kids, cousins and so forth. You have kids and grandkids. And part and parcel of responsibility as a human being, especially an American, when we are born and inherit such a wonderful place, it has to be incumbent on all of us to first and foremost want to pass that on to others. Why would we want...?
We always hear parents say, "I want my kids to have a better life than I had." It's natural. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's true. So I firmly believe that the policies of the left -- I don't care who runs 'em. I don't care who's implementing them, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. I don't care who's implementing them, they're bad. They're destructive. They eliminate or damage individual freedom. They destroy lives in the sense that they destroy the quest for excellence. They destroy the quest for individuality. They make everybody feel like they're victims. They make everybody feel like the world resolves around them. They bust up families with welfare programs. Liberalism is destructive, and it's a myth. It's a series of myths, and it's destructive, and it can destroy the country as we've known it, if unchecked.
Like it has destroyed New Orleans, or did, like it has destroyed Detroit, like it's on the verge of altering California in ways that people who are native to that state are crying about. You go to any city that has been run by unchecked liberalism for years, and you will see a microcosm of what can happen to this country if they succeed to the degree they've succeeded in these cities. Forty-seven percent of graduates in Detroit cannot read, high school graduates. Now, to liberals that's an opportunity. To us, it's a crying shame. So I'm being somewhat verbose here in explaining to you why I have this great fear and opposition to liberalism, socialism, collectivism, whatever you want to call it. The evidence is all around us to see; the effects of it, in Detroit, in New Orleans, prior to Hurricane Katrina or any other place where nobody but liberals run the show.
I don't care if it's a city or a ward or a neighborhood or a whole state or a whole city, you can see it. It's there -- and conversely, you can see the prosperity that exists when it is not dominate, when liberalism is not dominate. So, believing this to the bottom of my heart and to the depth of my fertile brain, what do I see when I gaze out across the country but a bunch of people who have given up, who have been told there is no hope for them. There is no chance either because of their gender, their skin color, their size, what have you. I look at a media which is promoting the very things and people I fear will cause great damage and destruction to the country. So I decide to say, "I hope it fails," and then I say, "I hope he fails."
To me, it is the most basic common sense, and what stuns me is that no one, apparently -- well, outside of our little world here of conservatism. No one is examining at all the effects of this plan, which is depressing! It's frustrating. It makes you mad. But I'm not one just to sit around and take it. So, okay. If it takes somebody dropping a little bomb to cause some people to wake up and at least start thinking, even if they're knee-jerk reacting, I'll gladly do it. So, damn well I intended to say it! I'm saying it again now: I hope he fails! Because, my friends, America wins if liberalism fails, and that's the bottom line. America wins if this plan fails, because it can only fail, this plan. This has never worked. What they're trying has never worked. This plan will fail.
And it's gonna cause pain and suffering, and it's going to be a long recovery from it, and I believe that the people in this didn't get what they want and get what they vote for, based on, you know, a whole bunch of factors that make them think and vote the way they do. I hope it fails. I hope liberalism fails every time it's tried because it has. I don't want it to succeed. America succeeding, and everyone talks about, "But we all want our new president to succeed!" No, we all want our new president to do the right thing. Big difference. We all want our president to do the right thing. If we're attacked by someone, we want him to do the right thing. We don't know if closing Guantanamo is the right thing. We do not know if turning these people loose and trying them in US courts is the right thing. Well, I don't think it's the right thing. I know it's not the right thing -- and I know this economic porkulus bill is not the right thing. I want America to succeed.
I love my country. I want it to remain the place with more freedom and more opportunity and more prosperity than anyplace on the planet and I want the rest of the planet to learn from us, and this ain't the way to do it. So I want America to succeed. My whole objective here is to maintain an America in the image of its Founders and founding, where individual liberty and freedom reward the human spirit and the yearning to be free, the entrepreneurial desire to excel at something. That's the greatest propellant this economy has ever had, and I'm all for it continuing. I don't want to starve this engine of fuel -- and the government is not fuel, and it's not an engine. The government is a giant roadblock. And the people trying to build the government are, in my mind, moving us forward toward America not being the best it could be. So that's what "I hope it fails" means.
He'll say he does, but he is who he is. He's an extreme radical leftist who talks a conservative game to mask it. His demeanor belies the fact that he is who he is. From his demeanor, you'd never think this guy is a radical. You would never think he's an extremist unless you took seriously who his mentors are: Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, the whole list of these people that we weren't allowed to talk about during the campaigns. I mean, Obama's telling the Republicans not to listen to me, but it's okay for him to listen to Jeremiah Wright, for example. So in my mind, I know who he is and I know what he's going to do. I have no doubt, zero doubt about where Obama wants to take this country and why.
He wants to move it far left. He wants the government to be as large as it can. He wants power. He wants to punish success. He wants to try to make everybody as equal and the same as possible, 'cause that's "fair." There is nothing about him that has an adoration or respect for capitalism. Look at the stimulus bill and you can see. To me, anyway, there's no question about this. Now, when I gaze out across the country and I look at what is called the mass media, I see no person, entity, network -- I see no attitude, no similar attitude reflected. I see no skepticism. I see no curiosity. I see no informed knowledge. I see nothing but pure groupie idolatry, from a constitutionally charged business designed to be suspicious of people who want power and to vet them and to find out who they are.
So the mass media is selling a version of Obama that he wants sold. They are helping to advance it, to promote it, and promulgate it. Now, what am I to do? I love my country. I was born at one of the best times in world history to be born. We all were. Look at the opportunity that we have had because of the diligent, hard work, and sacrifices of our forbears. Look at the abundance into which we were born. Now, I don't have kids but I've got nieces and nephews, and I've got a lot of family that have kids, cousins and so forth. You have kids and grandkids. And part and parcel of responsibility as a human being, especially an American, when we are born and inherit such a wonderful place, it has to be incumbent on all of us to first and foremost want to pass that on to others. Why would we want...?
We always hear parents say, "I want my kids to have a better life than I had." It's natural. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's true. So I firmly believe that the policies of the left -- I don't care who runs 'em. I don't care who's implementing them, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. I don't care who's implementing them, they're bad. They're destructive. They eliminate or damage individual freedom. They destroy lives in the sense that they destroy the quest for excellence. They destroy the quest for individuality. They make everybody feel like they're victims. They make everybody feel like the world resolves around them. They bust up families with welfare programs. Liberalism is destructive, and it's a myth. It's a series of myths, and it's destructive, and it can destroy the country as we've known it, if unchecked.
Like it has destroyed New Orleans, or did, like it has destroyed Detroit, like it's on the verge of altering California in ways that people who are native to that state are crying about. You go to any city that has been run by unchecked liberalism for years, and you will see a microcosm of what can happen to this country if they succeed to the degree they've succeeded in these cities. Forty-seven percent of graduates in Detroit cannot read, high school graduates. Now, to liberals that's an opportunity. To us, it's a crying shame. So I'm being somewhat verbose here in explaining to you why I have this great fear and opposition to liberalism, socialism, collectivism, whatever you want to call it. The evidence is all around us to see; the effects of it, in Detroit, in New Orleans, prior to Hurricane Katrina or any other place where nobody but liberals run the show.
I don't care if it's a city or a ward or a neighborhood or a whole state or a whole city, you can see it. It's there -- and conversely, you can see the prosperity that exists when it is not dominate, when liberalism is not dominate. So, believing this to the bottom of my heart and to the depth of my fertile brain, what do I see when I gaze out across the country but a bunch of people who have given up, who have been told there is no hope for them. There is no chance either because of their gender, their skin color, their size, what have you. I look at a media which is promoting the very things and people I fear will cause great damage and destruction to the country. So I decide to say, "I hope it fails," and then I say, "I hope he fails."
To me, it is the most basic common sense, and what stuns me is that no one, apparently -- well, outside of our little world here of conservatism. No one is examining at all the effects of this plan, which is depressing! It's frustrating. It makes you mad. But I'm not one just to sit around and take it. So, okay. If it takes somebody dropping a little bomb to cause some people to wake up and at least start thinking, even if they're knee-jerk reacting, I'll gladly do it. So, damn well I intended to say it! I'm saying it again now: I hope he fails! Because, my friends, America wins if liberalism fails, and that's the bottom line. America wins if this plan fails, because it can only fail, this plan. This has never worked. What they're trying has never worked. This plan will fail.
And it's gonna cause pain and suffering, and it's going to be a long recovery from it, and I believe that the people in this didn't get what they want and get what they vote for, based on, you know, a whole bunch of factors that make them think and vote the way they do. I hope it fails. I hope liberalism fails every time it's tried because it has. I don't want it to succeed. America succeeding, and everyone talks about, "But we all want our new president to succeed!" No, we all want our new president to do the right thing. Big difference. We all want our president to do the right thing. If we're attacked by someone, we want him to do the right thing. We don't know if closing Guantanamo is the right thing. We do not know if turning these people loose and trying them in US courts is the right thing. Well, I don't think it's the right thing. I know it's not the right thing -- and I know this economic porkulus bill is not the right thing. I want America to succeed.
I love my country. I want it to remain the place with more freedom and more opportunity and more prosperity than anyplace on the planet and I want the rest of the planet to learn from us, and this ain't the way to do it. So I want America to succeed. My whole objective here is to maintain an America in the image of its Founders and founding, where individual liberty and freedom reward the human spirit and the yearning to be free, the entrepreneurial desire to excel at something. That's the greatest propellant this economy has ever had, and I'm all for it continuing. I don't want to starve this engine of fuel -- and the government is not fuel, and it's not an engine. The government is a giant roadblock. And the people trying to build the government are, in my mind, moving us forward toward America not being the best it could be. So that's what "I hope it fails" means.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A great example why Jimmy Carter is dangerous
Jimmy Carter was on the Today show this morning, where he was interviewed by Meredith Viera. Carter's exposition of events in the Middle East consisted mostly of an endorsement of Hamas. It almost has to be read to be believed:
CARTER: ... We've had a chance to meet two times with the leaders of Hamas, both those in Gaza and those that are top leaders in Damascus, Syria.
VIEIRA: And you've been criticized for that, sir, because Hamas is considered a terrorist group.
CARTER: By some, they are, and they've done some bad things. But for instance, the year before we had the cease-fire, that I helped to orchestrate last June, the 19th, there was one Israeli killed by rockets. And on an average, 49 Palestinians killed every month during that previous year. And as soon as the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas obeyed it completely. There was no serious rocket fire during the next four or five months.
Whereas, Israel did not restore providing provisions for the Palestinians and Gaza. But Hamas has pledged to me -- and publicly -- that they will accept any cease-fire that is negotiated between the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israelis, provided the cease- fire, in turn, is then submitted to the Palestinian people for approval and a referendum. So, that's a major step forward.
Hamas is considered a terrorist group "by some"? Carter apparently does not count himself among those "some," but on what conceivable theory is Hamas not a terrorist organization?
That, in any event, is evidently a small concern for Carter. In his view, Hamas is entirely reliable, and when anything goes wrong it is Israel's fault:
VIEIRA: Do you believe that Hamas can be trusted?
CARTER: Yes, I do. I think they can, because of their own self- interest, not because they're benevolent, or kind, or that sort of thing. But yes, I do. I think they can. And they've never betrayed any commitment that they've made to me, or publicly, as a matter of fact. ...
VIEIRA: But Hamas has said its goal is to destroy Israel. How can you involve them in a peace process when they said their goal is to destroy Israel? They don't recognize Israel.
CARTER: I'm not here to defend Hamas, but to tell you what they have pledged to me, and publicly: That if any agreement is negotiated between Fatah leaders and Israel, that Hamas will accept the agreement if it's submitted to the Palestinian people in a referendum. And that's a very good step forward. And I think they will do that because of their own self-interest.
And Hamas complied very thoroughly with the cease-fire agreement that I had worked out for the last June the 19th. For five months, there were no rockets fired until Israel did attack Gaza again on November 4th.
So Hamas' firing of 126 rockets and 71 mortars into Israel in November, and the many that have followed since then, was all Israel's fault because the Israelis "did attack Gaza again on November 4th."
For those who don't recall that "attack," these are the facts, as we related here:
The IDF sent special forces 200 yards across the border to destroy a tunnel that had been built to facilitate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Intelligence indicated that such a kidnapping was imminent:
The IDF accused Hamas of jeopardizing the truce by digging the tunnel and plotting to abduct more Israeli soldiers in the immediate future.
"The tunnel we uncovered was ready for imminent use, forcing us to act immediately," the military source said. "We did not know where the other end of the tunnel surfaced. In light of the intelligence we received about its immediate use, plans for special forces to enter Gaza this evening after sundown were approved," he added.
Hamas gunmen opened fire on IDF forces and Hamas fired 45 rockets into Israel the same night.
I can't speculate on his motives, but Carter's animus against Israel and his weirdly positive attitude toward America's terrorist enemies make him a force for evil, not for good, in the Middle East.
CARTER: ... We've had a chance to meet two times with the leaders of Hamas, both those in Gaza and those that are top leaders in Damascus, Syria.
VIEIRA: And you've been criticized for that, sir, because Hamas is considered a terrorist group.
CARTER: By some, they are, and they've done some bad things. But for instance, the year before we had the cease-fire, that I helped to orchestrate last June, the 19th, there was one Israeli killed by rockets. And on an average, 49 Palestinians killed every month during that previous year. And as soon as the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas obeyed it completely. There was no serious rocket fire during the next four or five months.
Whereas, Israel did not restore providing provisions for the Palestinians and Gaza. But Hamas has pledged to me -- and publicly -- that they will accept any cease-fire that is negotiated between the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israelis, provided the cease- fire, in turn, is then submitted to the Palestinian people for approval and a referendum. So, that's a major step forward.
Hamas is considered a terrorist group "by some"? Carter apparently does not count himself among those "some," but on what conceivable theory is Hamas not a terrorist organization?
That, in any event, is evidently a small concern for Carter. In his view, Hamas is entirely reliable, and when anything goes wrong it is Israel's fault:
VIEIRA: Do you believe that Hamas can be trusted?
CARTER: Yes, I do. I think they can, because of their own self- interest, not because they're benevolent, or kind, or that sort of thing. But yes, I do. I think they can. And they've never betrayed any commitment that they've made to me, or publicly, as a matter of fact. ...
VIEIRA: But Hamas has said its goal is to destroy Israel. How can you involve them in a peace process when they said their goal is to destroy Israel? They don't recognize Israel.
CARTER: I'm not here to defend Hamas, but to tell you what they have pledged to me, and publicly: That if any agreement is negotiated between Fatah leaders and Israel, that Hamas will accept the agreement if it's submitted to the Palestinian people in a referendum. And that's a very good step forward. And I think they will do that because of their own self-interest.
And Hamas complied very thoroughly with the cease-fire agreement that I had worked out for the last June the 19th. For five months, there were no rockets fired until Israel did attack Gaza again on November 4th.
So Hamas' firing of 126 rockets and 71 mortars into Israel in November, and the many that have followed since then, was all Israel's fault because the Israelis "did attack Gaza again on November 4th."
For those who don't recall that "attack," these are the facts, as we related here:
The IDF sent special forces 200 yards across the border to destroy a tunnel that had been built to facilitate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Intelligence indicated that such a kidnapping was imminent:
The IDF accused Hamas of jeopardizing the truce by digging the tunnel and plotting to abduct more Israeli soldiers in the immediate future.
"The tunnel we uncovered was ready for imminent use, forcing us to act immediately," the military source said. "We did not know where the other end of the tunnel surfaced. In light of the intelligence we received about its immediate use, plans for special forces to enter Gaza this evening after sundown were approved," he added.
Hamas gunmen opened fire on IDF forces and Hamas fired 45 rockets into Israel the same night.
I can't speculate on his motives, but Carter's animus against Israel and his weirdly positive attitude toward America's terrorist enemies make him a force for evil, not for good, in the Middle East.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Not only do U.S. taxpayers have to pay for abortions, we have to pay for foreign abortions.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday will lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, an administration official said.
"It will be today. He's going to make an executive order (lifting the global gag rule)," the official said.
The Democratic president's decision is a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.
It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social policies of the conservative administration of former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.
Critics call it the "gag rule" because it also cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions, so they say it infringes on free speech. They also say it has reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.
When he reinstated it, Bush said taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for or advocate abortions.
Anti-abortion activists agreed with Bush and criticized the move to lift the ban on funding.
"When we wake up every morning to a deepening financial crisis, it is an insult to the American people to bail out the abortion industry," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
"Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar company and they do not need additional resources to burden the American taxpayer," she added.
The United States spends more than $400 million on overseas family planning assistance each year.
Critics of the funding ban say the anti-abortion restrictions have resulted in huge drops for funding worldwide to organizations that provide family-planning services and basic healthcare. They say this means many women are deprived of contraception and other health services in poor countries, leading to back-alley abortions and deaths.
The Center for Reproductive Rights says, for example, that in Ethiopia and Lesotho, some non-governmental organizations are no longer able to offer comprehensive and integrated healthcare services to patients suffering from HIV/AIDS.
Abortion rights opponents and groups who support the Mexico City Policy contest the view that it has led to an increase of illegal abortions or deaths overseas.
Unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama did not act on the rule on the January 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortions legal throughout the country.
"It will be today. He's going to make an executive order (lifting the global gag rule)," the official said.
The Democratic president's decision is a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources.
It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social policies of the conservative administration of former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.
Critics call it the "gag rule" because it also cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions, so they say it infringes on free speech. They also say it has reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.
When he reinstated it, Bush said taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for or advocate abortions.
Anti-abortion activists agreed with Bush and criticized the move to lift the ban on funding.
"When we wake up every morning to a deepening financial crisis, it is an insult to the American people to bail out the abortion industry," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
"Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar company and they do not need additional resources to burden the American taxpayer," she added.
The United States spends more than $400 million on overseas family planning assistance each year.
Critics of the funding ban say the anti-abortion restrictions have resulted in huge drops for funding worldwide to organizations that provide family-planning services and basic healthcare. They say this means many women are deprived of contraception and other health services in poor countries, leading to back-alley abortions and deaths.
The Center for Reproductive Rights says, for example, that in Ethiopia and Lesotho, some non-governmental organizations are no longer able to offer comprehensive and integrated healthcare services to patients suffering from HIV/AIDS.
Abortion rights opponents and groups who support the Mexico City Policy contest the view that it has led to an increase of illegal abortions or deaths overseas.
Unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama did not act on the rule on the January 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortions legal throughout the country.
Obama asks GOP what they think about bailout then says I won.
(Newser) – President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus plan today, then calmly reminded them that "I won," Politico reports. The GOP is seeking more middle-class tax cuts, among other things, and says the spending package is too large. Further negotiations are planned, but Dems appear to be in control. Asked if he worried about GOP resistance to passing the bill by Feb. 14, Harry Reid replied, “No.”
“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said, adding that “government can’t solve this problem." Republicans have pointed out an OMB report that indicates stimulus funds won’t reach the economy until 2010; Reid said the report was based on partial data, and that the $825 billion or larger plan would quickly provide relief.
Why did he ask, he knew he didn't care what they thought.
“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said, adding that “government can’t solve this problem." Republicans have pointed out an OMB report that indicates stimulus funds won’t reach the economy until 2010; Reid said the report was based on partial data, and that the $825 billion or larger plan would quickly provide relief.
Why did he ask, he knew he didn't care what they thought.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Waste of money
The obama inauguration is going to cost $170,000,000. More than Bush 2005, Bush 2001, Clinton 1997, clinton 1993 and Bush senior, combined.
Spirit airlines did what?
No, seriously: they did *what*?
Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
Monday, January 19th at 2:00PM EST
22 Comments
So, let’s review the bidding.
* You and your friend are flying to Myrtle Beach to do some golfing. Sounds like fun; have a good time!
* Oops! Your regular carrier cancels your flight! Well, that’s all right: they get you a flight on another airline. So, you fly off…
* …and your plane promptly loses both engines because of a flock of what were likely geese*. And, oh, look, there’s the Hudson River.
* Fortunately, your captain today is Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who proceeds to demonstrate that he’s just that good. So you manage to actually walk away from a forced water landing in the middle of winter. Don’t buy any more lottery tickets, by the way - and look both ways while crossing the street from now on. You’ve used up your quota of luck for a while.
* All of this means that you never actually make it to Myrtle Beach.
* And so, when you eventually get around to calling your original carrier to cancel your return trip, guess what happens?
That’s right! Spirit Airlines charges you a $90 cancellation fee! See also here.
(pause)
You know, in some cultures the response to this would be to lock the customer service representative in a room with a gun and expect him to do the honorable thing. I’m not saying that this is the right solution - but it’s probably the one that Spirit Airlines might end up wishing that it could pursue…
Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
Monday, January 19th at 2:00PM EST
22 Comments
So, let’s review the bidding.
* You and your friend are flying to Myrtle Beach to do some golfing. Sounds like fun; have a good time!
* Oops! Your regular carrier cancels your flight! Well, that’s all right: they get you a flight on another airline. So, you fly off…
* …and your plane promptly loses both engines because of a flock of what were likely geese*. And, oh, look, there’s the Hudson River.
* Fortunately, your captain today is Chesley B. Sullenberger III, who proceeds to demonstrate that he’s just that good. So you manage to actually walk away from a forced water landing in the middle of winter. Don’t buy any more lottery tickets, by the way - and look both ways while crossing the street from now on. You’ve used up your quota of luck for a while.
* All of this means that you never actually make it to Myrtle Beach.
* And so, when you eventually get around to calling your original carrier to cancel your return trip, guess what happens?
That’s right! Spirit Airlines charges you a $90 cancellation fee! See also here.
(pause)
You know, in some cultures the response to this would be to lock the customer service representative in a room with a gun and expect him to do the honorable thing. I’m not saying that this is the right solution - but it’s probably the one that Spirit Airlines might end up wishing that it could pursue…
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Election theft in MN.
Posted by Brian D (Profile)
Wednesday, January 7th at 12:36PM EST
9 Comments
The Wall Street Journal in an Op Ed published on Monday, Funny Business in Minnesota, made the case that funnyman Al Franken is stealing the disputed U.S. Senate election from Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota. After the first count of ballots, Senator Norm Coleman retained a 215 vote lead, but the margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount of the election. After a recount, Franken emerged with a 225 vote lead. This controversy will be resolved by the Minnesota courts, yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decreed, “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate.”
The WSJ points to the following examples of how Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies leaving the certified result in doubt:
1. Franken picked up between “80 to 100 votes,” because duplicate ballots may have been double counted. There is evidence that “25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.”
2. Franken gained 46 votes when the Canvassing Board decided to jettison the recount results from Hennepin County and substituted the election night results.
3. Franken gained 37 votes in Ramsey County where 177 more ballots were counted in the recount than were recorded on election night.
4. Franken gained 176 votes because of inconsistent consideration of contested absentee ballots.
Minnesota law does not allow a certification of the result until the court cases are resolved and the Senate should let this process work out in the Minnesota Courts. A vote of the United States Senate to seat Franken without a certificate of election would prejudice any change Coleman has to win this case on appeal in Minnesota. Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decided the case and declared that “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate,” Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. “He lost the election. He can stall things, but he’ll never serve in the Senate.”
Wednesday, January 7th at 12:36PM EST
9 Comments
The Wall Street Journal in an Op Ed published on Monday, Funny Business in Minnesota, made the case that funnyman Al Franken is stealing the disputed U.S. Senate election from Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota. After the first count of ballots, Senator Norm Coleman retained a 215 vote lead, but the margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount of the election. After a recount, Franken emerged with a 225 vote lead. This controversy will be resolved by the Minnesota courts, yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decreed, “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate.”
The WSJ points to the following examples of how Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies leaving the certified result in doubt:
1. Franken picked up between “80 to 100 votes,” because duplicate ballots may have been double counted. There is evidence that “25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.”
2. Franken gained 46 votes when the Canvassing Board decided to jettison the recount results from Hennepin County and substituted the election night results.
3. Franken gained 37 votes in Ramsey County where 177 more ballots were counted in the recount than were recorded on election night.
4. Franken gained 176 votes because of inconsistent consideration of contested absentee ballots.
Minnesota law does not allow a certification of the result until the court cases are resolved and the Senate should let this process work out in the Minnesota Courts. A vote of the United States Senate to seat Franken without a certificate of election would prejudice any change Coleman has to win this case on appeal in Minnesota. Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already decided the case and declared that “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate,” Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. “He lost the election. He can stall things, but he’ll never serve in the Senate.”
Another great of example of schools that don't have enough money.
Chicago public school bureaucrats skirted competitive bidding rules to buy 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000, with most of the machines going unused because the schools they were ordered for had not asked for them, according to a report by the CPS Office of Inspector General.
That was just one example of questionable CPS actions detailed in the inspector general's 2008 annual report. Others included high school staffers changing grades to pump up transcripts of student athletes and workers at a restricted-enrollment grade school falsifying addresses to get relatives admitted.
In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.
"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.
CPS spokesman Michael Vaughn said CPS plans to change its purchasing policy so that competitive bidding kicks in when a vendor accumulates $10,000 worth of orders, no matter how many schools are involved. One person was fired and disciplinary action is pending against three others, he said.
The grade-changing took place at an unidentified high school, where student athletes grades were boosted, then, after transcripts were issued for college admission offices, the grades were changed back. The culprits could not be identified because passwords allowing entry to the grading system were shared by a number of people, Sullivan said. A new record system has tighter security, he said.
At Carson Elementary, an overcrowded school in Gage Park where even neighborhood kids were restricted from enrolling, five lower- level employees got six relatives into the school by falsifying addresses. Sixty-nine students from outside the attendance area got in, but they didn't even bother to lie about their addresses. CPS had to spend as much as $252,000 to bus kids who live in the neighborhood to other schools, Sullivan said.
Vaughn said the employees involved have resigned, been fired or will be fired.
That was just one example of questionable CPS actions detailed in the inspector general's 2008 annual report. Others included high school staffers changing grades to pump up transcripts of student athletes and workers at a restricted-enrollment grade school falsifying addresses to get relatives admitted.
In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.
"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.
CPS spokesman Michael Vaughn said CPS plans to change its purchasing policy so that competitive bidding kicks in when a vendor accumulates $10,000 worth of orders, no matter how many schools are involved. One person was fired and disciplinary action is pending against three others, he said.
The grade-changing took place at an unidentified high school, where student athletes grades were boosted, then, after transcripts were issued for college admission offices, the grades were changed back. The culprits could not be identified because passwords allowing entry to the grading system were shared by a number of people, Sullivan said. A new record system has tighter security, he said.
At Carson Elementary, an overcrowded school in Gage Park where even neighborhood kids were restricted from enrolling, five lower- level employees got six relatives into the school by falsifying addresses. Sixty-nine students from outside the attendance area got in, but they didn't even bother to lie about their addresses. CPS had to spend as much as $252,000 to bus kids who live in the neighborhood to other schools, Sullivan said.
Vaughn said the employees involved have resigned, been fired or will be fired.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The main street media finally is mad at Al Qauda
Killing of thousands of innocent people and vowing to destroy all non believers did not upset them. Calling Obama a house negro has really set them off.
Al Qaeda's number two crackpot, Ayman Zawahiri, called Barack Obama a "house Negro" in an audio tape released yesterday. That was beyond the pale, as State Department spokesman Sean McCormack explained:
"It's just, you know, more despicable comments from a terrorist," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters when asked to comment on the remarks.
"And if anybody needed ... more of a contrast between what ... the West and the United States stand for, in terms of democracy and what these terrorists stand for, I don't think you need to go any further than those comments," he said.
I would have said that you don't need to go farther than the fact that the terrorists try to crash airliners, blow up buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible. In some people's eyes, though, that seems to be a subtle distinction.
What's ironic about this is that liberals have been calling people like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house Negroes" for some years now. Maybe the Left needs a new aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's liberal.
Al Qaeda's number two crackpot, Ayman Zawahiri, called Barack Obama a "house Negro" in an audio tape released yesterday. That was beyond the pale, as State Department spokesman Sean McCormack explained:
"It's just, you know, more despicable comments from a terrorist," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters when asked to comment on the remarks.
"And if anybody needed ... more of a contrast between what ... the West and the United States stand for, in terms of democracy and what these terrorists stand for, I don't think you need to go any further than those comments," he said.
I would have said that you don't need to go farther than the fact that the terrorists try to crash airliners, blow up buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible. In some people's eyes, though, that seems to be a subtle distinction.
What's ironic about this is that liberals have been calling people like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house Negroes" for some years now. Maybe the Left needs a new aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's liberal.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Another great example of the anti religion anti God feeling of the Democrats.
On his November 10 Huffington Post, Nicholas Graham and nearly every commenter thereafter, purposefully distorted what Governor Palin said about prayer and the 2012 presidential race. The universal misconstruction of Palin's comments was that she was "praying to become president" in 2012 and that somehow God was speaking directly to her. But reality is she did not say that at all.
Graham offhandedly claimed that Palin said that she was waiting "for a sign from God" as to whether she would run in 2012. Further distorting her comments, he claimed she was "confident God would show the way to the White House." But, once again, she said neither of these things. In fact, what she actually said is rhetoric that is pretty much in accord with what even elected presidents have said at one time or another.
Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time when the default position for Democrats as a party is to despise religion even if individually they consider themselves religious. They consider any expression of religious sentiment whatsoever to be an example of "extremism," and "bigotry" against others. Well, at least the second any Republican expresses a religious sentiment, that is. When anyone from their side does it, they wink, nod and assume that their politician is just lying and merely trying to get elected and doesn't really mean it -- which is still an expression of a hatred for religion when all is said and done.
Graham offhandedly claimed that Palin said that she was waiting "for a sign from God" as to whether she would run in 2012. Further distorting her comments, he claimed she was "confident God would show the way to the White House." But, once again, she said neither of these things. In fact, what she actually said is rhetoric that is pretty much in accord with what even elected presidents have said at one time or another.
Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time when the default position for Democrats as a party is to despise religion even if individually they consider themselves religious. They consider any expression of religious sentiment whatsoever to be an example of "extremism," and "bigotry" against others. Well, at least the second any Republican expresses a religious sentiment, that is. When anyone from their side does it, they wink, nod and assume that their politician is just lying and merely trying to get elected and doesn't really mean it -- which is still an expression of a hatred for religion when all is said and done.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
ready to rule day 1
So says Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Barack Obama's transition team. Part of Obama's "ruling" will be a quick succession of executive orders, news reports indicate. High on the list will be an order reversing President Bush's order that cleared the way for expanded offshore drilling.
The price of gasoline and heating oil has dropped off the radar screen somewhat as a political issue, but blocking the development of domestic energy reserves is absurdly short-sighted. As soon as the economy rebounds, so will the price of petroleum, and the high cost of energy will brake the recovery that is sure to come in the next 12 months. The Democrats must know this, but to the victors go the spoils, and the Dems have little choice, apparently, but to reward the interest groups who financed their victory.
Still, poll data indicate that even most Democrats favor more offshore drilling, so Obama's order will be a sop to the hard environmental left, not the Democratic base as a whole. Which explains why Obama will issue the order: in September, before the financial crisis took center stage and when John McCain was making energy a centerpiece of his campaign, Congressional Democrats let the statutory ban on offshore drilling expire.
By issuing an executive order banning development of this critical source of domestic energy, Obama will take the Democrats in Congress off the hook. They won't have to take the blame for the economic havoc wreaked by their party's fealty to the hysterical wing of the environmental movement. Obama figures, perhaps, that in four years no one will remember the implicit tax that he placed on everyone who drives a car, heats a home, or buys products in stores.
The price of gasoline and heating oil has dropped off the radar screen somewhat as a political issue, but blocking the development of domestic energy reserves is absurdly short-sighted. As soon as the economy rebounds, so will the price of petroleum, and the high cost of energy will brake the recovery that is sure to come in the next 12 months. The Democrats must know this, but to the victors go the spoils, and the Dems have little choice, apparently, but to reward the interest groups who financed their victory.
Still, poll data indicate that even most Democrats favor more offshore drilling, so Obama's order will be a sop to the hard environmental left, not the Democratic base as a whole. Which explains why Obama will issue the order: in September, before the financial crisis took center stage and when John McCain was making energy a centerpiece of his campaign, Congressional Democrats let the statutory ban on offshore drilling expire.
By issuing an executive order banning development of this critical source of domestic energy, Obama will take the Democrats in Congress off the hook. They won't have to take the blame for the economic havoc wreaked by their party's fealty to the hysterical wing of the environmental movement. Obama figures, perhaps, that in four years no one will remember the implicit tax that he placed on everyone who drives a car, heats a home, or buys products in stores.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)